In this article I shall discuss a subject which, to my knowledge, has never been considered before – namely, whether Jude 5–7 presents Jesus as the Angel of the Lord. A final solution to the vexed problem of the varia lectio (or variae lectiones) in v. 5 is not of paramount importance in the following pages, for even if it could be agreed that (ò) κύρως was the original reading, it would have to be explained why a copyist could feel able to substitute ΊησοṺς for ‘Kyrios’. Some see ‘Jesus’ as the result of a mere ‘transcriptional oversight (―KC being taken for ―IC)’, but text-critical conjectures are to be dismissed if a reading can be given a reasonable meaning, and the same principle would have to apply to an assumed substitution.

Interpreters of Paul have expressed no doubt until the present era that Paul's viewpoint on sexual intercourse is articulated in 1 Cor. 7.lb: καλòνανθρωπωγυναικòς μń âπт*σθαι This association of the most outstanding Christian theologian with sexual asceticism has caused significant repercussions in Western culture. But now there is much uncertainty as to whether the apostle was: (a) asserting his position in his own words; (b) quoting a slogan of some Corinthians that he accepted; or (c) quoting a Corinthian slogan that he rejected. In this essay a sampling will be given of these major interpretive positions and an argument in favour of the third will be presented.

The three Pastoral letters present themselves as Paul's personal correspondence, but their contents would fit better the genre of a community letter. The pseudonymous author has forged them as personal letters from ‘Paul’, because he had to reckon with his readers' critique concerning their authenticity, above all with critical scrutiny directed at possible contradictions in their circumstances of origin. Through the genre of a private letter he has attempted to concoct previously unknown letter-situations, and to make understandable the late discovery of the letters. At the same time, through the construction of three letters he has made a claim for general validity in respect of geography and time, so as to spread the ‘right meaning’ of the statements in the Corpus Paulinum.

The words ‘Jewish-Christian’ and ‘Jewish Christianity’ are used in several different senses within the field of New Testament research. Some scholars—no doubt oneself included on occasion—use them with varying significance in the same article or book, so that the reader is either led astray, or discovers that the words do not have the same meaning every time they occur. The aim of the following is to draw attention to this fact, of which perhaps not everyone is aware, and to attempt to reach a clearer usage of the term Jewish Christianity; and I shall therefore now try to formulate and answer certain questions that may throw light on the conditions described by the terms in question, and on the use of these terms.

Since the publication of Paul Schubert's article, ‘The Structure and Significance of Luke 24’, considerable attention has been paid to what Schubert called Luke's ‘proof-from-prophecy theology’ and what others have identified as the pattern of prophecy/promise and fulfilment. Whatever term is used, it is generally agreed that Luke–Acts presents Jesus' life and the beginning of the church as the fulfilment of God's design for salvation as announced through his prophets. Yet most discussions of this aspect of Luke's theology have focused on Luke's interest in showing that Jesus and the earliest Christians fulfilled OT prophecy, while less attention has been paid to the predictions made in the narrative itself.Even less attention has been paid to the relationship between the fulfilment of OT prophecy and the fulfilment of these narrative predictions. This study will show how the narrative predictions in Luke–Acts contribute to Luke's theology of fulfilment and discuss the ways in which these predictions interface with Luke's emphasis on the fulfilment of OT prophecy.

Why does the tide ‘Son of David’ occur more frequently in Matthew than in the other Gospels? Do these more numerous references serve any real purpose in Matthew? It is not enough merely to say that they occur because the First Gospel was written by a Jewish Christian (or Christians), for the Fourth Gospel does not have the phrase at all. Other than the discussion of Christ's Davidic sonship which is to be found in all three of the Synoptic Gospels (Matt. xxii. 41–5; Mark xii. 35–37a; Luke xx. 41–4), Mark, followed by Luke-Acts, has the phrase ‘Son of David’ only in the twofold appeal to Jesus for healing by a single blind beggar (Mark x. 47, 48; Luke xviii. 37, 39). Matthew, on the other hand, calls Jesus the Son of David in his opening sentence (i. I), follows it up with a genealogy to prove it (i. 2–16), alludes to it at least twice more in the infancy narrative (i. 20 ii. 6), and records the title as related to Jesus during his ministry seven times in the mouths of others on five separate occasions (ix. 27; xii. 23; xv. 22; xx. 30, 31; xxi. 9, 15) where, as will be shown, it is used messianically.

Probably no detail of the account of Jesus' baptism has evoked so diverse a range of suggestions as has the dove. That the critics did not invent the problem is shown by the ancient texts themselves. (a) Mark's report is ambiguous: (Jesus) είδεν…τό πνε⋯μα ώσ περιστεράν καταβαῖνον ε;ἰσ αὐτόν, for ‘as a dove’ could modify either the noun that precedes it or the participle that follows. (b) Matthew has not completely removed the ambiguity: ειδεν πνε⋯μα Φεο⋯ καταβαῑνον ὡσε⋯ περισερ⋯ν έρχòμενον έπʾ αὐτν (c) But Luke is more explicit: καταβ⋯ναι τò πνε⋯μα τò ἃγιον σωματικῷ εἲδει ὡσ περιστερ⋯ν ⋯π’ αὐτòν. ((d) According to the Fourth Gospel, the Baptist reports that he saw the Spirit καταβαῑνον ὡσ περιστερ⋯ν ⋯ξ οὐρανο⋯ κα⋯ ἔμεινεν ⋯π’ αὐτν and that previously he had been alerted to expect such a phenomenon (though the dove is not mentioned in the report of what God had previously said). (e) The Ebionite Gospel says Jesus saw τò πνε⋯μα τò ἂγιον ⋯ν εἴδι περιδτρ⋯σ κατελθοὑσησ κασ εἰσ αὐτòν, thereby answering the question of what happened to it. (f) However, the Gospel according to the Hebrews (Nazarene Gospel) has no dove at all but instead speaks of ‘the whole fount of the Holy Spirit’: descendit fons omnis Spiritus Sancti et requievit super eum, etc. These ancient variations, and the diverse textual readings, reveal that there is no single tradition of the dove, and that its meaning was problematic from the start. Nor has modern scholarship, equipped with tools and collected data, been persuasive in its understandings. Nevertheless, the history of interpretation can close doors to unfruitful hypotheses and move the discussion of Jesus' baptism forward.

This paper explores the boundaries between fact and fiction in ancient literature. The historians effectively created the concept of ‘fiction’ in Greek literature by defining what could be incontrovertibly established as ‘fact’ by accepted rationalistic criteria. Anything beyond these limits (tales involving distant places, or the distant past, or divine intervention) was widely perceived as belonging to the realm of ‘fiction’. To readers from this background, Acts would fall uncomfortably on the boundary: much of the narrative would sound like fiction, but there is a disturbing undercurrent which suggests that it might after all be intended as fact.

The problem of continuity between Jesus and Paul is an old one, not least with regard to their respective attitudes towards the law. For example, in a private conversation some years ago Ernst Käsemann maintained a typically provocative position: (1) that Jesus' attitude to the law lies very much at the heart of Jesus' distinctiveness; (2) that Paul's attitude to the law was in fact the same; and (3) that Paul was independent of Jesus at this point. The conversation unfortunately had to end before we could pursue such further questions as whether in that case Paul was as religiously significant (distinctive? unique?) as Jesus. But it highlights an important problem: if Paul's attitude to the law, with its coordinate teaching about grace and justification, is central to the Christianity of the Gentile mission, then in what sense or degree is his teaching continuous with or dependent upon the traditions which stemmed from Jesus - if at all?

In The Oral and Written Gospel, Werner Kelber argues that the first written gospel was an attempt to supersede oral tradition by the creation of a literary ‘counterform’. It aimed to discredit ‘oral authorities’ (identified as the disciples and family of Jesus and Christian prophets). Similarly, the paucity of sayings in Mark indicates a suspicion of the sayings genre, which is taken to be the oral genre par excellence. The sayings represent the living voice of the living Lord. The substitution of a written gospel would silence that voice as an ongoing phenomenon by relegating it to the dead past. The passion narrative is essentially the creation of Mark, and with its emphasis on the death and post-resurrectional silence of Jesus, creates a new Christology in opposition to the ‘oral Christology’ of the sayings, which never refer to the death of Jesus. The net effect of the written gospel was to inaugurate a theology (or ‘hermeneutic’) of death and absence in contradiction to the principle of presence that informed the oral tradition.

One of the most puzzling aspects of our much overworked field of New Testament studies – puzzling particularly at a time when individualism and personal religious experience have become central themes in our culture – is the fact that so little attention has been given to the most obvious, indeed the only clearly accessible instance of a personal religious experience in the New Testament. While some exegetes have shunned psychological contributions almost as if they might somehow impugn the authenticity of the event itself, others have undoubtedly reacted to the excesses of earlier attempts to psychoanalyse Paul's personality. But whatever the justification, the decision to follow a literary path, to the exclusion of the psychological, has meant that exegetes have lost touch with the dynamic, experiential dimension of Paul's conversion and have been forced to isolate it from other facets of his career.

If we ask the question, ‘Did Paul know Jesus?’, we find that it is not so simple because of the ambiguities of the word ‘know’. Some other expression would make for clarity, e.g. ‘Did Paul have any contact or relationship with Jesus?’, or, even more pointedly, ‘Did Paul see Him, go further and listen to Him, and still further and speak with Him?’ ‘Know’ can mean, ‘know Him by sight’, ‘have a slight contact with Him’, ‘have close relations with Him’; ‘know about Him’ from others; and, finally, ‘form a judgement about Him’ or ‘understand Him’. Moreover, again and again when this question is raised in its simple form the ambiguous II Cor. v. 16 is invoked.

Since the rise of the interdisciplinary approach to the study of Christian origins in the 1970s, little attention has been given to the problem of social control within the early church. This is true although control issues arose early in the Christian movement and have continued throughout Christian history. Before 1970 scholars treated the problem historically and theologically under the topic of discipline. Among scholars who utilize the social sciences in their approach to Christian origins, there are some scattered materials on internal social control but little direct, sustained investigation.

Constitutional questions are posed in much recent study of Christian origins. What was the significance of the ministry of Jesus for the contemporary Jewish polity, and the subsequent growth of the Christian ecclesia? The differing emphases of the answers can be roughly labelled ecclesiastical, for example in B. F. Meyer, or national, for example in G. B. Caird and E. P. Sanders. Despite such differences, the twelve must needs be central in the subject-matter (as in B. F. Meyer, 134; Sanders, 326). Can one go further towards determining the constitutional significance of a body of twelve for a Jew of the first century A.D.?

One possible model for the twelve, the group of tribal princes, seems to be relatively neglected. In what follows attention will be drawn to it, and an attempt will be made to characterize its interpretation in ancient Judaism. Finally, against this background, brief comment will be offered on the place of the twelve in early church order and in the ministry of Jesus.

Philippians 3 is central to the question of integrity of the letter. While those who argue for three fragments struggle with the intention of the chapter, those who argue for the letter's integrity vote for its function as an exemplum. This article argues that there is some truth in both positions. Philippians 3 imitates the Jewish testament genre in which an ideal biography is depicted to become a model of religious advice. But while Paul deals critically with genre, he became a religious hero in the canonical letter, which was edited by the Philippians in the early second century ce.

Andrew Overman, Anthony Saldarini and David Sim overstate their case when they conclude that the religion of the Matthean community was not Christianity but Judaism. The appeal to 5.17ff. and the exclusivist sayings will not bear the weight of the hypothesis. There is far too much newness in Matthew and the differences with Judaism are too great to conclude that Matthew exhibits mere ‘deviance’ from other Jewish groups. The ‘new things’ involve a radical reorientation of previous perspectives wherein Christ takes central place previously held by Torah. Matthew's community is thus best described as a Jewish form of Christianity.

A parenetic text from Qumran, which is only unofficially published, refers to ‘the vessel of your bosom’. This passage might shed new light on the enigmatic σκη⋯оς of 1 Thess 4.4.

The passage in question belongs to one of the admonition sections of Sapiential Work A from Qumran. Sap. Work A is a sapiential composition preserved in seven fragmentary copies, one from Cave 1 (1Q26) and six from Cave 4 (4Q415/416/417/418a/418b/423). Six copies display early Herodian script (30 BC – 20 AD), while one (4Q423) represents a late Herodian hand (1 – 50 AD). The high number of copies and the fact that this book was being copied even until a late stage in the history of the Qumran settlement shows that it was highly regarded within the Essene Community.

The parable of the Good Samaritan presents Jesus' distinctive interpretation of the Torah in parabolic form. When it confronts a priest with a dead or dying man, it sets up an unusual, halakhically debatable situation, since the commandment that a priest avoid contracting corpse-impurity conflicts with the commandment to love the neighbour. One commandment must take precedence. Jesus' Jewish contemporaries would have disagreed as to how the priest should behave, but the general halakhic principle which the parable suggests – that the love commandment should always override others in cases of conflict – seems to be unparalleled.

Zu den Vorarbeiten für einen Kommentar zum Römerbrief gehört der Versuch, über den Zweck und den Gesamtcharakter dieses Apostelschreibens Klarheit zu gewinnen. Darum gibt es von Ulrich Wilckens einen ‘Aufsatz Über Abfassungszweck und Aufbau des Römerbriefs’, vier Jahre vor dem ersten Band seines Kommentars erschienen,2 und von Peter Stuhlmacher einen Vortrag ‘Der Abfassungszweck des Römerbriefs’,3 erwachsen aus der Vorarbeit für seinen Römerbrief-Kommentar im ‘Neuen Testament Deutsch’, mit dessen Erscheinen bald zu rechnen ist. Einen ähnlichen Stellenwert und Sinn hat für mich das folgende Referat im Blick auf die Kommentierung des Römerbriefs im Theologischen Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament, die mir übertragen worden ist. Dabei freue ich mich besonders, diesen Vortrag in eben dem kirchlich-gesellschaftlichen Raum halten zu können, in dem auch der Kommentar in erster Linie seinen Beitrag zum Verständnis und zur Wirkung des Neuen Testaments leisten soil. Daraus könnte eine Diskussion erwachsen, die meine Arbeit an der Auslegung des Briefes durch neue Gesichtspunkte anregt und vorantreibt.